Who is liable?

AdrianC

Astronaughtwannabe wrote: »

The Highway Code is known to be wrong...'twas since at least R v Chadwick went to court in 1974 but there's no doubts many other reasons why you shouldn't rely on it. In fairness though, it says something like 'minimum stopping distances'.

Basically, 1ft per mph was just for ease of reckoning and nobody seems to know much about how they arrived at the braking distances. I spose they are broadly a reasonable guess when you consider that braking to stop is inversely square to your speed but friction is dynamic so that's not strictly true either.

The HC stopping distances are notoriously pessimistic, and haven't changed (apart from being metricated) since the '60s. They are rumoured to be based on the unservoed drum brakes of an old Ford Anglia on crossply tyres. Which seems about right, given their length relative to the distances even a modest modern car can achieve.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/vauxhall/corsa/performance
48m braking distance from 70mph to rest, in a Vauxhall Corsa. The HC reckons 75m.
...or...
http://www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/volvo/s60/performance
53m stopping distance for a big heavy Volvo, on winter tyres on a day far warmer than they're recommended for use. Even in the wet, it stopped more quickly than the HC dry distance.
...or...
http://www.tyrereviews.co.uk/Article/2012-Autobild-50-Tyre-Braking-Test.htm
A tyre test showing 35m braking distances - and 44m wet - from 60mph, compared to the HC's 55m.
(The 70m wet braking distances of some of those tyres says more about how bad some budget tyres are than the HC distances, but that's another thread)

PlumC

AdrianC wrote: »

To have somebody hug them and tell them it's not their fault.

Their insurer's the only one who can do that with any actual effect, though, and even if we ignore the hug, that's unlikely to happen.

I think that is a very immature pathetic answer, I came here for some advice as I am still young and it was not clear to me if I was liable or not. Not sure you'd be on this high horse if this happened to your 20 year old daughter (theoretical obviously as I do not know you as you do not know me) and she was asking for a bit of advice.

However I must say, nice of you to offer out a free hug.
Due to circumstances of the other driver actually admitting that she was not paying attention as she was on her mobile at the time I won't comment about me being a "careless driver"

dacouch

Tonight I will give thanks to the heavens that

a) I'm not a claims handler

b) I'm not a claims handler having to deal with Cornucopia in an accident where he was reversing off a drive and he thinks is the other drivers fault as they were speeding.

Retrogamer

Were you using the mirrors when reversing or looking out of the rear window?

If you were looking out of the rear windows whilst reversing (assuming it's a car and not a van) would you not see the other car approaching before driving in it?

RS2000.

PlumC wrote: »

I think that is a very immature pathetic answer, I came here for some advice as I am still young and it was not clear to me if I was liable or not. Not sure you'd be on this high horse if this happened to your 20 year old daughter (theoretical obviously as I do not know you as you do not know me) and she was asking for a bit of advice.

However I must say, nice of you to offer out a free hug.
Due to circumstances of the other driver actually admitting that she was not paying attention as she was on her mobile at the time I won't comment about me being a "careless driver"

Why did you join up this forum and ask for advice?

It matters not what anyone on here thinks, as no one here will be paying your claim.

Barny1979

Even if the driver has admitted they were using their phone, do you expect them to mention that in their witness statement in the cold light of day?

AdrianC

PlumC wrote: »

I think that is a very immature pathetic answer,

I'm sorry if you think that.

I came here for some advice as I am still young and it was not clear to me if I was liable or not.

The first nine replies in this thread all gave a clear and consistent answer to that question. Yes, you are 100% liable.

Post 11, though, was your reply saying that you "didn't come here to be criticised". It all got a bit side-tracked after that point, as threads are wont to do, but the original answers stand. Even now, on the fifth page, with the exception of one poster, the replies are consistent.

Not sure you'd be on this high horse if this happened to your 20 year old daughter (theoretical obviously as I do not know you as you do not know me) and she was asking for a bit of advice.

Your age and gender are irrelevant to the replies given out, not least because none of us knew the answer to either until just now.

However I must say, nice of you to offer out a free hug.

<hug>

Due to circumstances of the other driver actually admitting that she was not paying attention as she was on her mobile at the time

Ah, the drip-drip-drip of relevant information... and I'll bet that doesn't make it onto her claim form, either.

But, whether it does or not, it still doesn't affect the fact that it is 100% your responsibility to make sure the road is clear before you reverse out. Where the other person's not paying attention, that just shows how important it is for you to look properly.

I won't comment about me being a "careless driver"

It usually takes two people not looking properly to actually collide. If either one was paying attention, the collision wouldn't have happened. If she'd been looking properly, she'd probably have hit her horn to warn you of her presence. If you'd been looking properly, she'd not have needed to.

And, yes, I would say exactly that to any friend or relative of any age or gender who happened to be old enough and mature enough to have a driving licence.

Cornucopia

I can see that certain posters aren't letting the science interfere with their "judgement". Negativity reigns apparently.

With the new info about mobile phone use (as I predicted, BTW), I would say the OP should easily get this to 50/50, and may even get 100% non-fault, if it can be shown that the other party was probably speeding as well.

Retrogamer

Cornucopia wrote: »

I can see that certain posters aren't letting the science interfere with their "judgement".

With the new info about mobile phone use (as I predicted, BTW), I would say the OP should easily get this to 50/50, and may even get 100% non-fault, if it can be shown that the other party was probably speeding as well.

The speeding thing is just a guess. I didn't see them therefore they must have been speeding isn't evidence. That's evidence you haven't seen them.
When most people hit cyclists who rarely break speed limits they always say "i never seen them"
Most cases where people haven't seen something approaching is because they have been unobservent.

The other party may have been on her mobile via a hands free kit.
If she wasn't i doubt they would be admitting it to their insurance either.
Even if someone is driving on their mobile, it doesn't give you a green light to drive into the side of their car.
The responsibility to make sure the road is clear is the person joining the road, regardless of what the other people are doing on it.

Either way, the OP's insurance will pay out and hold her 100% liable.

To dispute it would mean going to court which means much more money. Even if someone they did win (they wouldn't based on current information), the man hours into getting to that stage would cost far more than the actual payout and business' need to look out for their own interests as well.

Cornucopia

dacouch wrote: »

Tonight I will give thanks to the heavens that

a) I'm not a claims handler

b) I'm not a claims handler having to deal with Cornucopia in an accident where he was reversing off a drive and he thinks is the other drivers fault as they were speeding.

Breaches of the Law and the Highway Code are a key consideration in assessing liability... but presumably you know that?